frequency ?

[name]

in physics, frequency is defined as the formula

f=1/t

frequencies are expressed in the unit /hertz/ - one hertz being one repetition per second of the event measured.

basically, frequency is defined in relation to time. time is a "phenomenon" which very possibly does not exist but is only 'perceived' by the brain. time is measured in quite arbitrary units, a second currently being defined as a count of so-and-so-many pulsations of a cesium atom (IIRC).

so, time at worse does not exist, at best we dont understand what it is, which is what that consensus definition (measurement) suggests. from what i've read from the C transcripts, time is part of the great illusion of our density - so if it 'exists' inside this context it applies only to 'here', then: what is 'outside' this context ?

so, if time does not exist: how exactly is /frequency/ defined ? how does one measure /waves/ (of whatever kind) in absence of time ? does the concept of /wavelength/ hold if time is absent ? in the case of wavelength, /speed/ of the wave is also involved in the definition, and the concept of speed also needs time to bootstrap, so here we have time used two times in the definition.

i'd be grateful for any pointers (xxx.lanl.gov, books, urls, ...) - and i CAN read texts spiked with formulas.

 

[John G]

The illusion comes not from there not being a "time" but from there being two kinds of time. Here's a link Ark posted recently:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/PIRT-IX-APStone-FullText.pdf

 

[MaskedAvatar]

Why not just take any wavelength and measure others against it as a baseline?

 

[ark]

Why not just take any wavelength and measure others against it as a baseline?

a) Wavelengths do not measure time. They can serve for measures of distances.
b) wavelengths may change, they are not absolute. We know some reasons for which they may change, but we probably do not know all reasons.
c) wavelengths may have no meaning whatsoever in certain situations - for instance, when there are quantum jumps between different realities.

 

[MaskedAvatar]

Interesting if you need to consider that there are no consistent wavelengths, when in fact there is probably a universally constant (absolute) one. But I am, well well out of touch with it, more than the Gurdjieffian sets of laws would ever contemplate - that's me.

In the end you have to measure with something. Our consensus for measurement of time is based on assumed positions of the speck of dust we are on relative to the ball of gas it orbits around... ie our observation of physical objects in some assumed constant relationship with one another. It's not much of a quantum jump in reality to know that the ball of gas will expire one "day" and that the speck of dust we are on is imperilled by us being on it. ;)

 

[ark]

Interesting if you need to consider that there are no consistent wavelengths, when in fact there is probably a universally constant (absolute) one.

Did you study the subject? It is always better study first, and talk later.

You may like to start your studies by searching the internet for the term ""variable physical constants". Then study more. And more.

But I am, well well out of touch with it, more than the Gurdjieffian sets of laws would ever contemplate - that's me.

If you are out of touch with something - it may be a good idea to first get in touch, before expressing your opinion. You may like to read carefully the thread about "opinions".

In the end you have to measure with something.

That is what we all do. Be careful with logic. If A is not B, that does not prove that C is not D.

Our consensus for measurement of time is based on assumed positions of the speck of dust we are on relative to the ball of gas it orbits around... ie our observation of physical objects in some assumed constant relationship with one another. It's not much of a quantum jump in reality to know that the ball of gas will expire one "day" and that the speck of dust we are on is imperilled by us being on it. ;)

Whose concensus are you talking about? Your consensus with yourself?

The fact that "we" (you?) assume something in no way implies that this something is true. People were assuming for quite a while that the Earth is flat. It is good to keep the history in mind.

 

[joejoeba]

If "nothing" could be found than maybe that would be the universal constant to measure all that is something against. I am saying that there must be a boundary between what is, what could be, and what will/may be to what could never be. That line (or wiggle) if probability suggests a distant possibility of the entirly impossible, must at some level exist. "Nothing" must exist.

beyond our universes must exist potential to exist furthur than what does exist otherwise nothing is very simple to find. If the smallest particle that is known could get smaller and smaller and smaller infinitely to the point where it was so small it was also big then it would be CONTAINED in it's smallness by the nature of it's origin, so before, after or during any particles existance it must have existed before it's current existance, and one could argue AFTER it's current existance with relative certainty. Does this potential not suggest time?

It is in my mind that a circle is an infinitely sided polygon, but is also just 1 circle, so therfore in that shape it is not a square, could never be a square if it were to be percieved as a circle So that alone suggests that there is a nothingness between a circle and a square. That nothingness is also called a difference. time therefore must be a vibration that logs the difference between two concieved points of perception on some real level, even across the board of quantinium. It must all be contained by potential. beyond that is nothing. nothing is something different to something....I perambulate and realise nothing, but through experience I achieve something due to the perambulation.......

Dare I say.aaargh?

 

[joejoeba]

OH no! I have expressed exactly the equivelent of what it is I was trying to state is the constant yang to the universe: nothing. I deeply deeply apologise for my hideous noise. back to the iner and outer....apologies.

 

[MaskedAvatar]

Thank you for the deconstruction and close study of my work ark.

We either believe in an absolute or we don't. It's there in the ray of creation, but then so is the sequence of shocks at intervals the further from the absolute that we are. It's in the Work that "we've" (some of us) have studied.

I have my reasons for not desiring to be in touch with the absolute or its one inconceivable universally constant wavelength at this time. ;)

Yep, study. A good pastime.

"We" in my post in terms of labelling the "consensus view" = the human species that got to the point in all laws and social conventions that "matter" in the "developed world" where "we" determined to measure 1 second as 1/60 of a minute, 1 minute as 1/60 of an hour, 1 hour as 1/24 of a day, the day and other fragments to do with rotations and moon and orbits as assumed from stellar alignements; such is the consensus on the planet I live on, and it may well remain so, funny thing about planets and suns.

joejoba I like your very close differentiation of infinity and oneness. Is the potential the same as the difference between the solutions to 1/0 = infinity or 1/0 = unsolvable. Of course not, just a thought. You said nothing is something that is different to something. I believe also, (I believe you also believe this) that there is nothing that is nothing.

 

[anart]

I have my reasons for not desiring to be in touch with the absolute or its one inconceivable universally constant wavelength at this time.

Yes, that's been quite evident from your posts of the past thirty six hours or so (or did you think of it as a little joke?)- but I'm sure you know that. Is there a point you're trying to make with these rather arrogant posts of yours, or is it yet another 'pastime'? Just curious.

 

[Azur]

We either believe in an absolute or we don't. It's there in the ray of creation, but then so is the sequence of shocks at intervals the further from the absolute that we are. It's in the Work that "we've" (some of us) have studied.

And belief is a constrictive construction that by design tests wether you can find your way to reality. The method is not important, by the side effects are everything. In fact, the side effects are probably why the Universe exists; to see what side effects can emerge.

I have my reasons for not desiring to be in touch with the absolute or its one inconceivable universally constant wavelength at this time. ;)

Yep, study. A good pastime.

The zero point awaits you. See you on the upswing. We'll have beers and compare notes on our adventures when you come back.

 

[ark]

Thank you for the deconstruction and close study of my work ark.

You are making mistake after mistake. Please, read twice or ten times what you write, before you post, and analyze lack of logic. Then remove the logical errors.
I did not study your work, for the simple reason that I am not aware of any "work" that you have published. What I studied are a couple of your juvenile posts.
This is not a work.

We either believe in an absolute or we don't.

"We?" We - who? The SOTT team repeats it over and ovre again:

We do not believe anything

But you do not read or, if you read, you do not understand or, if you understand, you have your reasons to keep making logical errors. You are making mistake after mistake. Please, read twice or ten times what you write, before you post, and analyze lack of logic. Then remove the logical errors.

It's there in the ray of creation, but then so is the sequence of shocks at intervals the further from the absolute that we are. It's in the Work that "we've" (some of us) have studied.

Now, it is better. You added "some of us". So, that means my effort is not lost. You are learning something. So, there is a hope.

Concerning the "ray of creation" - that is another "working hypothesis", not a fact to be believed. It seems to point into something that may be interesting, but what exactly is this something? Science is not yet there.

I have my reasons for not desiring to be in touch with the absolute or its one inconceivable universally constant wavelength at this time. ;)

Please, be serious. If you are going to post just jokes - better stop posting altogether. Jokes are good - once in a while. But we do not need clowns whose only function is to distract busy people with jokes.

"We" in my post in terms of labelling the "consensus view"

Again logical error. You are talking about "consensus" that does not exist. There is no consensus. In a recent interview with Brian Josepson (Nobel Prize in physics) we can read:

Lone voices special: Take nobody's word for it - 09 December 2006
NewScientist.com news service

By Alison George

[...]

You draw the line in a very different place to most scientists when it comes to hard-to-prove phenomena such as telepathy and cold fusion.

BJ: Can I take you up on something? These things are not hard to prove, they're just hard to get accepted. The evidence for these phenomena would normally lead to them being accepted, but they have an additional barrier in that they are "unacceptable" and often unpublishable. Some people are extraordinarily hard to convince. In particular, people who work in an area in which the phenomena are highly reproducible cannot envisage situations such as cold fusion where - as in many areas of materials science - things are not that reproducible. They take the illegitimate step from "hard to reproduce" to "non-existent". Science is often presented as an objective pursuit, but the history of science tells you that this is far from being the case.

Do you mean that scientists cannot accept these phenomena because it would ruin their view of the world?

BJ: It would mean an admission of error. Instead, sceptics can always say that there must have been something wrong with these experiments. This means that you can never really prove anything, and a sceptic doesn't actually have to discover anything wrong to dismiss an experiment.
Is this why you've posted the motto "take nobody's word for it" at the top of your website?
Yes. And the corollary of this motto is that if most scientists denounce an idea, this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the idea is absurd. It seems that anything goes among the physics community - cosmic wormholes, time travel - just so long as it keeps its distance from anything mystical or New Age-ish.
There are lots of pointers towards strange things, such as the quantum interconnectedness of entangled particles, but physicists are very prickly about them, saying you shouldn't read anything into these results. There are in fact a lot of scientists who believe telepathy exists, but they keep quiet about it.

I take it that means you pay a price for speaking out about things like cold fusion, telepathy and the paranormal.

BJ: Yes. If you say you accept the reality of the paranormal then this automatically affects your reputation. It's assumed that if a person believes in this kind of thing then his views are not worth considering. It has led to certain people being very prejudiced against me and assuming that there's something wrong with anything I do. I don't have the kind of support network that researchers usually have. But since I can do my research on the mathematics of the brain by myself this is less of a problem than it otherwise would be, though it slows down progress considerably.

Why do you speak out about these things when you know it causes difficulties for your own research career?

BJ: They are important for various reasons. For example, cold fusion may contribute significantly to solving the problem of generating clean energy. Had it not been ridiculed back in 1989, we'd probably all now be using energy generated by cold fusion. So it's really important to speed up the process. I reckon that cold fusion will be accepted in the next year or so.

BJ: If the evidence about cold fusion is so convincing, why do so few people believe in it?
You have to look properly at the evidence typically blocked from publication by journals such as Nature,
and few people are willing to put in the effort to do that. Even better, go along to a laboratory where the work is being done. It's also hard to change how people think. People have vested interests, and their projects and reputations would be threatened if certain things were shown to be true.

So, there is no consensus. There is a struggle. Consensus would mean nothing anyway. Let me repeat: once upon a time there was a "consensus" that the Earth is flat. So what?

= the human species that got to the point in all laws and social conventions that "matter" in the "developed world" where "we" determined to measure 1 second as 1/60 of a minute, 1 minute as 1/60 of an hour, 1 hour as 1/24 of a day, the day and other fragments to do with rotations and moon and orbits as assumed from stellar alignements; such is the consensus on the planet I live on, and it may well remain so, funny thing about planets and suns.

But we are restricting our discussion to planets - we do not even know what they built of, because of problems with quantum physics. Do not forget about "paranormal phenomena" and theories of physics that seem to be involved with "variable time". Search the internet - and you will find a lot to study. So: study first, analyze your logical errors. Then, when you are done - write about the results of your studies. But AFTER, not before.

 

[Azur]

So, there is no consensus. There is a struggle. Consensus would mean nothing anyway. Let me repeat: once upon a time there was a "consensus" that the Earth is flat. So what?

There may not be a consensus within any small, limited group, but there is a consensus amongst other large groups. False consensus within groups is a barometer (indicating influence) when measured against reality. The crux of the matter, as you well know, and have given many tools in defense, is whether consensus is created. The struggle is always to show reality in contrast to what the "consensus creators" wish you to believe.

 

[MaskedAvatar]

"Jokes are good - once in a while. But we do not need clowns whose only function is to distract busy people with jokes."

Ark, what exactly are you busy with?

 

[Beau]

Dude, Ark is talking about everyone on the forum, not just himself. It's sad that the above quote is the only thing you responded to in his message reply to you. It seems now you are just being obnoxious. Go somewhere else.